So your saying if it is not specified with prejudice, it is presumed without prejudice. That scares me, I just had two charges dismissed by the state and they just say Dismissed. That means they can recharge me from what your saying. Is that correct? And my first question wasn't answered. where would I find that is what they mean by Dismissed?
Well I have been told by a different expert, on JA. And also my step-father, city attorney, when it just reads dismissed. This is presumed with prejudice unless stated without prejudice. This is where I am confused. I need to plead my case that it means with prejudice. Score 2-with 1-without. After reading the iowa rules of civil procedure, I am going to have to disagree with you. Unless you can show me something to prove otherwise.
This is a civil case. They filed in small claims against me in Nov 2005. In Jan 2007 the case was dismissed. Now they have refiled the same thing against me again.
What is Ray v. Merle Hay Mall Inc? I took that as the case was just dismissed like on Dec 31 1993. But the plaintiff filed a motion to continue in Dec 94, within a year of the dismissal. Had It gone over the one yr the case was done. I just don't see how the plaintiff can keep having you served paper for small claims, let it dismiss, file, let it dismiss and so on. This is a bank taking me back to small claims since last time in 05, dismissed in 07, but the clerk said they close after 90 days. why they didn't dismiss mine after 90 days, but wait two yrs. And why wouldn't an Iowa Attorney know this? And he is City Attorney, if he doesn't know, maybe the magistrate doesn't either. Anytime you have a few Attorneys, one saying black, and the other saying white, I am gonna be gray. Like rule 1.271(4)b As to a class not cerified, permit dismissal without prejudice. I take that as a dismissal is with prejudice, the court has to permit a dismissal without prejudice.
I am not sure what you mean. I got served papers back in July that they were taking me to small claims court. I replied that I deny the claim. As far as I knew this was dimissed in 2007. So I never thought anymore about it. The next thing I know is my checking account has a zero balance. I never got anything saying I was being garnished. My bank didn't even call me to tell me the sheriff was there to take the money. I was out of town at the time they took the money. Now I have found a Notice of Garnishment that the sheriff served my bank. It says that a Garnishment was issued based on a Judgement against you and the Garnishment was served on Dirk Fishback who has answered that he is indebted to you. They also served my bank a Notice of Garnishment and Interrogatories. Then in the return of service the sheriff says he served my bank and left copies of the notice of garnishment with the employer for delivery to the judgement debtor. But I don't have an employer so don't know what that means unless he is calling my bank my employer. The only thing that was served on me was the papers that they were taking me to court and I could answer that I agree or disagree that I owe this money back in june. I denied I owed it. I thought this had been dismissed in 07.
Yes it is very possible, I am in court for something else at the time and get alot of mail form the clerk of court and my attorney in that case. So court dates are being continued and changing. So this is very possible. And besides that case, I have another Small Claims case going on in Clinton County. So it is very possible I missed it.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).